Armstrong v Sehadew Oree t/a Oree's Cartage & Plant Hire (315/2002) [2003] ZASCA 116; 2004 (3) SA 152 (SCA) (14 November 2003)

Armstrong v Sehadew Oree t/a Oree's Cartage & Plant Hire (315/2002) [2003] ZASCA 116; 2004 (3) SA 152 (SCA) (14 November 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the oral agreement between the appellant and respondent for the extraction and sale of ordinary sand from Portion 43 was not invalidated by section 3(1) of Act 50 of 1956, as ordinary sand does not constitute a 'mineral' for the purposes of the Act. The evidence established that the respondent removed 76,000 cubic metres of sand without payment, and the oral agreement amounted to a sale of sand, regardless of the appellant's lack of ownership at the time. The respondent's argument that the agreement was invalid for lack of notarial attestation was rejected, as Parliament did not intend such formalities to apply to contracts for ordinary sand. The...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 116
Parties
Appellant: Robert Stanley Ross Armstrong; Respondent: Sehadew Oree t/a Oree's Cartage & Plant Hire
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2003
Case Number
315/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; judgment of the magistrate restored.
Judges
Farlam, Navsa, Cloete, Southwood, Mlambo
Legal Topics
Sale of Sand, Oral Variation of Contract, Formalities for Valid Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Condictio Indebiti
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Sale of Sand Oral Variation of Contract Formalities for Valid Contract Unjust Enrichment Condictio Indebiti

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Stanley Ross Armstrong

Appellant

Sehadew Oree t/a Oree's Cartage & Plant Hire

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent removed sand from Portion 43 without payment.
  2. 2 Whether the oral agreement for sand extraction was invalid for lack of notarial attestation under section 3(1) of Act 50 of 1956.
  3. 3 Whether ordinary sand constitutes a 'mineral' for purposes of section 3(1) of Act 50 of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the oral agreement between the appellant and respondent for the extraction and sale of ordinary sand from Portion 43 was not invalidated by section 3(1) of Act 50 of 1956, as ordinary sand does not constitute a 'mineral' for the purposes of the Act. The evidence established that the respondent removed 76,000 cubic metres of sand without payment, and the oral agreement amounted to a sale of sand, regardless of the appellant's lack of ownership at the time. The respondent's argument that the agreement was invalid for lack of notarial attestation was rejected, as Parliament did not intend such formalities to apply to contracts for ordinary sand. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; judgment of the magistrate restored.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'